A brief set of thoughts concerning the ideals of inclusion,
but also the difficulties which may be associated with the mainstream inclusion
of some children and young people with ASD, and some basic criteria by which to
judge the likely effectiveness of inclusive educational provision.

M.J.ConnorJanuary
2006

Introduction

In a previous paper in this series (Autism Current Issues 42
- January 2006) , reference was made to the work of Waddington and Reed(2005)
in which they contrasted the current pressure towards inclusion for children
with special educational needs, including ASD, with the lack of survey or
empirical research data about effectiveness.

It appeared that the policy of inclusion for the ASD
students had preceded the gathering of evidence to determine whether or not
this is the most appropriate arrangement for success in terms of quality of
life and social/educational outcomes.

Their own study suggested that it is not the school place
per se which is the most critical factor, but the availability of social and
therapeutic support alongside the ability and confidence of the parents to manage
their children at home.

One might speculate that the children and young people with
ASD are differentiable from those experiencing other types of need in respect
of the “invisible” nature of the condition.ASD is difficult to appreciate and understand on the part of external
observers, such as members of a peer group, when the individuals concerned do
not readily stand out from the group such that the subsequently noted
idiosyncratic social and communicative behaviours are all the more disconcerting.

One also notes that the those students who are at the high
functioning end of the spectrum, and likely to be included within mainstream
schools, may be all the more prone to emotional stresses because of their
ability to recognise their own (social and communicatory) differences but their
in-ability to identify the cause of such differences or how to
compensate for them.

Meanwhile, the present author would stress that the
principles and ideals of inclusion are well recognised and accepted, but that
there remain anxieties that, for certain students in certain circumstances,
there may be some question whether a mainstream place is the best
arrangement.Such a question may be
based upon the recognition of particularly marked needs or anxieties in the
students or the lack of mobilisation of support in the school.

One might hope that there will be a rapid diminution in the
extent of any between-school differences that remain in attitudes towards
inclusion, and that evaluation of school performance can take much more account
of the progress (including progress in social and life skills) made by all
students …not only those students who achieve some arbitrarily-selectedlevel of achievement in academic tests and
examinations.

In other words, all being equal, one would look to an
inclusive place as the prime option for the students in question; but, if all
is not yet equal, it remains necessary to look at the individual and
environmental circumstances relating to each case, alongside the wishes and aspirations
of the parents/carers, and to plan accordingly … … while retaining a spectrum
of provisions to match a spectrum of needs.

The summaries that follow are of identified articles or
survey data which deal with the issue of inclusion of students with ASD,
including attitudes to their inclusion, and are set out in simply in order of
their dates of publication.

The National Autistic Society Survey on Inclusion and
Autism (2000)

This survey prepared by Barnard et al (2000) begins by
noting how autism and Asperger Syndrome have been described as a “hidden”
disability in not being easily recognised and, therefore, attracting less
attention from society as a whole than other more immediately observable forms
of difficulty or disadvantage.They
also point out the frequently complex nature of ASD such that inclusion may be
more challenging in respect of the degree of adjustment required among the
staff and peer groups.

Their first quotation is from a parent who holds that
inclusion is not about everyone being the same but about having the choice
about joining in where they feel comfortable …. not where someone else
thinks they ought to be.

The authors summarise much of the received comment from
parents of children attending either mainstream schools, units, or specialist
schools as indicating the desirability of ensuring that the educational
provision is right and that positive experiences are enjoyed.This is not about where the education
takes place or where services and support are given, it is about the
appropriateness of the experiences; and inclusion should not be an automatic
arrangement to bypass sensitive and individual planning.

It is hoped that the majority of teaching and therapeutic
arrangements will involve inclusion in the mainstream schools, but it is likely
that there will always be some individuals who require discrete and specialised
services to match their particular requirements and circumstances.

A general pattern emerged from this study whereby parents
appeared satisfied in the majority of cases with educational opportunities for
their children.The probability of
satisfaction appeared greater in those cases where the children were receiving
autism-specific support (iein units
attached to mainstream schools or in specialist schools).

Further, positive perceptions were associated with provision
in the early stages of education, with a decline towards a less positive set of
perceptions among parents of children in the later school years.

The lowest level of parental satisfaction was linked to
mainstream placements where support was limited or absent, with the implication
that staff training and expertise concerning autism and the children’s access
to appropriate levels of support are critical issues.

Similarly, parents were no more positive about generic
specialist schools (those without a specific orientation towards autism) than
they were about mainstream provision with generic learning support.The significance of the autistic focus is
underlined, alongside the concern lest children with autism whose profile or
strengths and weaknesses are uneven will not be best placed in schools for
children with learning difficulties where there may be an assumption that the
(dis)abilities are similar across a range of subject areas.

If parental choice is to be a general right across
Education, then the implication is to ensure a degree of choice for parents of
children with autism and ASD in order best to match the particular profiles of
strengths and weaknesses.

Choice may imply greater cooperation between specialist and
mainstream schools while recognising, too, that some children will require the
provisions of a specialist school and that equality of opportunity is
not synonymous with the same opportunity for everyone.

What matters to parents is the recognition of the child’s
particular needs and the implementation of strategies and practicesby which to meet those needs; but a common
perception is that LEAs are driven by costs and resource implications rather
than by individual needs.

Also common among parental perceptions is the view that the
emphasis in schools is upon academic outcomes at the expense of attention to
social skill development, enhanced opportunities for meaningful peer
interaction, and independence skills as a preparation for adult life.

In their overall conclusion, the authors stress that
inclusion for students with ASD will inevitably involve considerable efforts
and flexibility to match the variety of special needs that may be associated
with ASD.

Further, inclusion must involve a commitment from everyone
associated with the school, in the full knowledge of the issues that will be
involved, including, in the secondary school, seeking to compensate for the
increased peer pressures upon the students to conform.The problems in this aspect of inclusion are
compounded by the awareness that a significant number of secondary school
students can be concerned about being ridiculed or shunned by their peers if
they maintain contacts with students known to have special needs.

They also argue that the National Curriculum does not
reflect the learning and experiential needs of students with ASD, particularly
those in the later year groups for whom social and life skills are the ones
that will be significant.

Their final point concerns the critical nature of staff
training to be sensitive to the needs of the students in question and to
establish a simple routine of ASD-friendliness in terms, for example, of
thinking about the use of language in instruction, the need for structure, and
the removal of anxiety by avoiding any uncertainty about what is expected.

Suggested Criteria for the Inclusion of Students with ASD

The paper by Cutler (2000) sets out her view of the
characteristics that a school should have, and the resources available, if they
are to be viable in providing an inclusive place for a student with ASD.These include the following ….

A
strong commitment to include the student with ASD in the regular classes.

A
shared understanding among staff of the particular needs, including the
neurological and motor aspects, of the students and a commitment to
accessing new knowledge and skills through ongoing training.

Outreach
opportunities to gain ideas, assessment data, and information from
specialists in the field of ASD.

A commitment to acting upon the unique
profiles of the students with ASD and to acknowledging their strengths,
needs, and learning styles.

An
awareness that the students may not perform well on standardised tests and
that actual skills and knowledge may not easily be appreciated via
observable performance, with implications for a range of methods by which
to gain a measure of competence.

An
awareness of the impact of environmental variables and events upon the
individuals with ASD including where and with whom they sit, the existence
of distractors, lesson plans to include a recap of previous material and a
preview of the next steps, appropriate diets, etc.

Provision
of adequate supports such as access to computer-based learning,
modifications of homework demands, access to regular physical activity,
flexibility about participation in PE and games, and individual teaching
support as required.

Accommodation
to any sensory or communicative weaknesses.

Provision
of adequate services such as speech therapy and occupational therapy, or
social skill and friendship development as in, for example, “Circles of
Friends”.

Availability
to the students of a degree of choice of activities and extent of
participation in the full range of curricular and extra-curricular provisions.

Adequate
liaison with families and a sharing of objectives and strategies to meet
the unique needs of the students.

Ongoing
capacity to identify problems and to devise fair solutions.

One may well be able to add to this list, but the clear
implication is that inclusion is a matter of flexibility of demands and targets
to meet the particular needs of the students, with the school system adapting
itself to those needs rather than expecting the students to accommodate to the
demands of the school.

This general theme is continued by Dybvik (2003) who
recognises the rise in the statistics on autism and the growing impact upon
schools.

The immediate requirement is for a higher degree of
coordination and planning among the mainstream teaching staff and for gaining
an assurance that all staff are confident in their knowledge of ASD and are
correspondingly confident about, and committed to, the inclusion of students
identified with ASD.

A corollary is the requirement to avoid a situation where
nobody dares to question inclusion especially when, in all probability, the
concern is not about the principle of inclusion but about the existing
provisions and practices by which to ensure that the inclusion of given
students is effective in terms of social, emotional, interactional, and
academic outcomes.

Dybvik suggests that inclusion can actually be negative in
its effects upon the student if there exists a policy of inclusion at all costs
(with an implication of the desirability of having available a range of
options) and if inclusion means little more than having the student physically
present in the mainstream school.

Inclusion must involve a readiness to identify the
idiosyncratic needs of the child and to provide accordingly.

One major issue being that of providing adequate staff
training about the range of likely learning and behavioural targets, as opposed
to maintaining an emphasis upon those learning targets which reflect what will
be assessed in national tests.

A second major issue is concerned with raising peer
awareness about the nature of ASD and how best to make and maintain
communication with the students in question.

(It seems relevant, when discussing criteria for inclusion
or for more specialist provision, to note the concerns expressed in a number of
quarters that SEN planning and negotiation can become a “battle” and that this
may continue to be so as long as the duty to assess and describe special needs
and the appropriate provision to match the needs falls upon the same body that
also has the responsibility for funding.)

General Thoughts

A position statement issued by Division TEACCH (2005) sets
out the philosophy of inclusion according to two frequently expressed
arguments.

Firstly, the use of specialist classes denies the students concerned
access to normal experiences and normal classroom interactions.

Secondly, the segregated services may not provide adequate
education for the students with special needs.

However, the statement expresses the concern lest
“inclusion” is being confounded with “mainstreaming.”

Mainstreaming typically involves placing students in
a mainstream school when (s)he is able to show the capacity successfully to
participate in the normal and routine activities and lessons.Inclusion will require modification of
those normal routines and activities, and access to support services as
required, in order that there is true and meaningful accommodation to the
student’s particular needs and styles.

The TEACCH argument strongly urges and promotes
“normalisation” of experiences for students with autism, but recognises other
equally important principles.

These include …..

Individual
planning to match idiosyncratic needs.

Use
of empirically-based approaches rather than ideologically-based
approaches.

Educational
and therapeutic strategies that reflect an understanding of the particular
nature of autism.

The range of needs would logically call for a range of types
of provision, and would allow for students to maintain access to a combination
of settings.

Individualisation requires the identification of the most
appropriate, and possibly unique, set of provisions based upon the needs
assessed rather than upon ideology.

The TEACCH position continues by setting out 4 basic
principles by which to guide placement decisions and practice within the
settings identified ….

The
primacy of preparing all persons with autism for successful functioning in
Society.

The
placement to be based upon identifying the least restrictive environment
.. no denial of appropriate educational opportunities, but ensuring that
the students can achieve meaningful learning and functioning in the
setting selected.

The
activities offered should be based upon an individual assessment of the
student’s skills and abilities to function and participate in the setting;
and the inclusive activities typically need to be supported by
professionals with knowledge and experience of autism able objectively to
evaluate the appropriateness and outcomes of the activity.

Inclusion
should not replace a full continuum of available services to match the
continuum of needs. Full inclusion will remain an option, along with
partial inclusion, and access to specialist classes and schools for those
students for whom they are most meaningful and appropriate.

The logic of inclusion is underlined by Daily (2005) who
notes that individuals with ASD are often first recognised by their problems
with achieving social interactions with peers, and that social skill deficits
or a-sociality are among the hallmarks of ASD.

This being so, there is a risk lest specialist education
with few opportunities to interact with mainstream students will compound the
problems and offer limited scope for social skill development and practice.

However, she continues, the regular educational setting will
only be as effective as the staff who are responsible for the class and will
reflect the pressures upon those staff.The regular classroom experience will be the more positive if there is
an emphasis upon the intentional teaching and modelling of social skills.

It is argued that teaching the students with ASD how to form
relationships and to appreciate the feelings of others is no less important,
and probably more important, than academic learning.

Looking at this from the other direction, Daily recognises
the value of setting demands for achievement levels which are to be checked by
regular and national testing, but the effect will be that all students,
irrespective of their particular needs and abilities, face the same demands for
successful performance on the standard tests.This may well be an unreasonable expectation to place upon the students
with disabilities.

If inclusion is to be effective, a different system of
evaluating performance, as well as differentiation of teaching goals and
styles, is necessary, especially if schools are to be penalised for their
willingness to provide for students with special needs.

In other words, and in the light of the range of needs
observable under the general heading of ASD, inclusion may prove to be the best
option for many students with ASD but not the most productive for all students.

Daily, too, calls for adequate professional support, and for
the ongoing training of staff to ensure the appropriate structure; and
concludes that the guiding principles should be those of recognising diversity
and of accepting that no single system or set of strategies will benefit all
students, ASD or not.

A similar view is expressed by Meshnik (2005) who suggests
that for any child to achieve his or her potential there is a need for love,
social skill development, access to friends, and inclusion with the community.
Her implication is that the children with ASD require the same things, albeit
in greater degree and via carefully organised experiences; and that, if the education
given to normally-developing children is what they need for success, those with
ASD are entitled to the education that they need.

It is recognised that specialist classrooms may provide the
right structure and that the students may feel well included among their peers
in that setting, but there is a bigger world outside, and the implication is
for preparatory work on functioning within that world.

A further implication is that one should take nothing for
granted among the young people with ASD, so that the curriculum, be it
mainstream or specialist, should include helping them to recognise the hidden
curriculum … the subtle signals and non-verbal messages which indicate
communicative intent or feelings … and the gaining of confidence to face daunting
social situations, such as eating lunch in the hall.

Meanwhile, an associated and critical need is for mainstream
peers to be given some insight into the nature of ASD as a first step towards
building relationships and willingness/confidence to include the students with
ASD in their play and activities.

Meshnik also concludes that a truly inclusive place appears
the ideal for manystudents with ASD
and one yardstick of success isthe
extent of daily and informal interaction between the students with ASD and
their classmates.However, all children
have unique combinations of strengths and weaknesses and anxieties and needs,
so that whether children with ASD should be in inclusive classes or in
self-contained settings will depend on observed performance, level of
functioning, and shared planning among teachers, parents, and other
professionals.

******

M.J.ConnorJanuary 2006

REFERENCES

Barnard J., Prior A., and Potter D.2000Inclusion and autism : is it working ?

London : National Autistic Society

Cutler B.2000Today’s criteria for inclusion of students with
ASD/PDD in their natural communities.Autism National Committee(ww.autcom.org)

Daily M.2005Inclusion of students with autism spectrum
disorders.Seattle : New Horizons for
Learning

Division TEACCH2005Inclusion for children
with autism.(Marcus L.)Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina

Waddington E. and Reed P.2005Comparison of the effects
of mainstream and special school placements on outcomes in children with
ASD.Report for the SE Regional
Special Educational Needs Partnership.(Psychology Department : University of Wales, Swansea)